The Johari Windows essay

This is a critique and analysis of the article titled “The Johari Windows” by author Jay Hall. This article was first appeared on the journal titled “The California Management Review, Vol. 15 (3) with the title of “Communication Revisited” in 1993. In the article, author has covered various aspects of communication in an organization with special focus to the concept of “The Johari Windows”. Critique In the article author have explained the need of effective communication in any organization and has extensively explained the concept of “Johari Window”.

According to Hall, Johari Window is information processing model. It accesses interpersonal style and individual effectiveness in terms of information processing tendencies. The interpersonal style and individual effectiveness impacts the overall performance of the organization. Hall in the starting of the paper states “The concept of interpersonal style is not an easy one to define; yet, if it is to serve as the central mechanism underlying the quality of relationships, the nature of corporate climate, managerial effectiveness, and the level of corporate excellence attainable, it is worthy of analysis.

” The model of The Johari Window was given by behavioral scientists Joseph Luft3 and Harry Ingham II. These scientists were interested in studying group behaviors and interpersonal relationships among the members of any group. They developed this model to identify different interpersonal styles, analyze consequences of these styles, their salient features and significance of these styles on the quality of relationships. The Johari Windows Model is given in the figure below. It is a four celled figure with two main parameters of feedback and exposure.

The Johari Window’s cells reflect the interaction of two interpersonal sources of information-Self and Others. It takes account of the behavioral processes required for utilizing that information. There are various kinds of data that have significance in the relationship can be collected and utilized to establish interpersonal relationship among them. Hall states that mix of relevant information has special significance on the quality of relationship. When a person shares any relationship with other person there are three factors that influence his actions.

First is his own perception about himself, his perception about the other person and other person’s perception about him. Figure 1 The Johari Window: A Model of Interpersonal Process In the region 1 of the Johari Windows Model represents the total interpersonal space Region I constitutes that portion of the total interpersonal that is devoted to mutually held information. The shared information, productivity and interpersonal effectiveness are directly related to each other. This section represents the control over productivity and interpersonal relationship. People imply mutual understanding with each other.

This region is called “Arena”. Since “Arena” represents the interpersonal space where individual is known by self as well as others, the relationship is usually shows productive results. According to Hall, Region II represents interpersonal space where information is known by others but not by self. In such condition it becomes challenging for an individual to understand behaviors, decisions, or potentials of others. Others on the other hand can understand and analyze situations easily. They know their feelings, perceptions and can easily estimate reactions. It makes it difficult for the person to fit himself.

The area of hidden information of this region is called the “Blind spot” that limits one’s personal effectiveness. Region III is when information is known by self but not by others. This also creates an imbalance of information. Information favors self and individual may tend to keep or hold information with self in order to protect him or sustain his power using the same. This kind of relationship results in “Facade”. Individual’s self defensiveness may disturb the relationship, productivity and effectiveness of the organization. Information not shared timely may lead to a condition where others may find it difficult to take decisions.

Hall states “The question is not one of whether a Facade is necessary but rather how much Facade is required realistically; this raises the question of how much conscious defensiveness can be tolerated before the Arena becomes too inhibited and interpersonal effectiveness begins to diminish. ” The Region IV is an area representing information not known by either of the party. It reflects psychodynamic data, hidden potential, unconscious idiosyncrasies, and the data-base of creativity. It may result to collaborative environment where people may try to find out information with the cooperation with each other or vice versa.

It can result to an ideal situation of region I or may end up in more complicated situation. It depends on the person involve in such interpersonal relationship. The fourth region is also known as “Unknown. ” In short all the regions represent various kinds of data like ability, adaptability, calmness, boldness, caring, cheerful, friendly, giving, energetic, loving, logical, patient, responsive, self assertive, self conscious, sentimental, spontaneous, trustworthy, warm, complex, organized, relaxed, witty and many others that impacts interpersonal relationship, productivity of the organization and effectiveness of the organization.

The area of each region namely arena, blind spot, facade and unknown are changeable due to dynamic characteristics of this model. The horizontal and vertical lines move. This gives individual control over their relationship space. Preferences of an individual will change with different time and condition. The moving area represents the same. An individual may be in self defensive state when he fears of losing his job or power or can be very helpful in providing information to others when he senses overall results not harmful or in his favor.

Hall states “Exposure and Feedback processes not only to a great but to a similar degree as well, individuals typically fail to achieve such an optimal practice. Indeed, they usually display a significant preference for one or the other of the two processes and tend to overuse one while neglecting the other. This tendency promotes a state of imbalance in interpersonal relationships which, in turn, creates disruptive tensions capable of retarding productivity. ”